Eliza Parr - History
by the Nazi party were valid and therefore that Hitler's consolidation of power did
constitute a legal revolution.
Other Legal Steps in Consolidating Power
An important step in consolidating the Nazis' grip on power by legal means was the
creation of the Gestapo by Goering on 26 April 1933. 28 The Gestapo had the ability to
“take any person into ‘protective custody’ and hold them indefinitely without any
right to trial.” 29 This enabled Hitler to deal with opponents rapidly and effectively by
arresting anyone who disagreed with the Nazi Party's views. Similarly, the Law
against Malicious Attacks on State and Party of 20 December 1934, 30 enabled the
Nazis to imprison people if they spoke against the state. As Richard Lawrence Miller
observes, these and similar legislative acts and decrees enabled “officials...[to] do
almost anything they believed would promote the public good,” 31 which allowed the
Nazis to further consolidate their power using legal means.
The creation of the People’s Court on 24 April 1934 32 was a further way in which the
Nazis used legal means to consolidate power and to ensure the prevalence of Nazi
ideology by “exterminat[ing]... the enemies of the Third Reich.” 33 The purpose of the
Court “was not to dispense impartial justice,” but instead “to annihilate the enemies of
National Socialism.” 34 The Court sought to “try all cases of treason” 35 and acted as a
“task force for combatting and defeating all attacks on the external and internal
security of the Reich.” 36 The formation of the People’s Court was a key step in
undermining the legal system and, in the absence of the Enabling Act, would have
been a clear breach of Article 105 of the Weimar Constitution, which outlawed the
use of extraordinary courts. However, due to the existence of the Enabling Act, the
creation of the People's Court was technically a legal act assisting in the Nazis'
consolidation of power.
The Nazis also used legislative acts and decrees to limit the freedom of lawyers to
represent their clients and to undermine the independence of the judiciary. 37 As Lord
Bingham has emphasised, “a truly independent judiciary is one of the strongest
safeguards against executive lawlessness; it thus becomes a victim of authoritarian
governments.” 38 The view expressed by President Leupolt of the Dresden Bar
Association that “an attorney’s duty towards his client “is limited by his
28
Todd, A. & Waller, S., 2011. History for the IB Diploma, Authoritarian and Single-Party States. 2 nd
ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 85
29
Müller, I., 1991. Hitler’s Justice. Harvard, USA: Harvard. Translated from German by Deborah
Lucas Schneider, p. 284
30
Miller, R.L., 1995. Nazi Justiz, Law of the Holocaust. Westport, USA: Praeger, p. 1
31
Miller, R.L., 1995. Nazi Justiz, Law of the Holocaust. Westport, USA: Praeger, p. 50
32
Müller, I., 1991. Hitler’s Justice. Harvard, USA: Harvard. Translated from German by Schneider,
D.L., p. 51
33
ibid
34
Müller, I., 1991. Hitler’s Justice. Harvard, USA: Harvard. Translated from German by Schneider,
D.L., p. 142
35
Müller, I., 1991. Hitler’s Justice. Harvard, USA: Harvard. Translated from German by Schneider,
D.L., p. 287
36
Müller, I., 1991. Hitler’s Justice. Harvard, USA: Harvard. Translated from German by Schneider,
D.L., p. 142
37
Evans, R. J., 2006. The Third Reich in Power. London: Penguin Books, p. 74
38
Bingham, T., 2011. The Rule of Law. 2 nd ed. London: Penguin, p. 25
193
7